Our professor invited the class to discuss our perceptions of the label ‘feminist’ and to fill out a short survey to assess our attitudes. Not many of our classmates would identify themselves as ‘feminists’, which is understandable given the common associations made with such a label ( positive or negative). The book was able to define the various feminists with whom many of us were able to relate. Cataline Woldersky lectured on media and body image and print ads. She discussed the perception of the female as vulnerable, abused, violated, dominated, objectified and infantiled. If I were to take a step back and look at the world from a feminist point of view, I would see the world as a playground for men, where females, money and nature are their toys. Our second lecture focused on how females are ‘played with’ in terms of their role as pleasure providers. As a sex slave – I mean – ‘pleasure provider’, women are used to sell products (to women) by means of their purpose – for men.. (and some women)! Here is where it gets tricky. Woldersky notes that the social construct of beauty ideals has a psychological impact, with specific reference to ‘thin media’, which creates the ‘contrast effect’. The results of which create an unrealistic ‘ought’ self for the girls the ads target as well as the unintended (males, children, under-represented women).
What we were able to address in class briefly, was how to deal with outside influences such as family members and friends by disrupting the of patterns of behaviours and events that lead us to false ideas. I don’t know if I’ll be able to address every topic discussed this week, so for my first journal I’d like to simply explore a few of the points that stuck out for me.
In addition to these debates, I was able to have this discussion with a friend about my impressions of the topic and how it was being approached. To critically view the subject, we acknowledged the assumptions that are made by those who are teaching us. The assumption is that we are exposed to advertisements, and that those ads have an economical and psychological impact on the well being of the majority. That is, the topic of commerce cannot be excluded from the psychology of media. Every ‘matter’ in a piece of advertisement is a product. There is no motivation but money – and the image of women is the means by which this money is made. Why if we were all so disgusted by it – they would fail to reap profit. We would look at the commercial and say ‘there is no way I’m going to purchase that product – the image revolts me.’ This is evidence of the underlying general expectation that women assume they are to like those things that are firstly, attractive to men, and secondly expected of them to like.
As an example of this, we are invited respond to the question ‘How many people would not change their bodies?’ Well, this is the sort of question one might ask before exposing the participants to ads depicting women who, we are told, are to be the feminine ideal. Truly the question cannot be answered truthfully unless all the participants are given details as to what the consequences of changing their body parts would be. Equally important is the reasoning – which was not elicited – but assumed. My point is – do we all buy into the same group mentality as we appear to be? My guess is that asking people their opinions in a setting where they are anonymous or in a smaller group would convey different results. I must emphasize again that our education fails us often. We as Psychology students are aware of group influence, and yet I do believe we are still susceptible to it. I must say I felt pressured given the number of hands that shot up in response to this question. Although I have no desires to change myself, I had the thought…’should I be putting my hand up? Am I lying to myself? Is there something wrong with me?
